Self-regulation of the press isn’t working, as Lord Justice Leveson has conceded.
But while his proposals would certainly be an improvement on the status quo, providing the new regulatory body has sufficient resources to do investigations and deliver prompt judgements, like many I feel uneasy with the suggestion that self-regulation might continue in a new form.
Some people fear that a code of conduct and legal sanctions will inhibit press freedom.
This view was echoed by the prime minister, David Cameron. Speaking in the House of Commons, he praised Leveson but did not promise to implement his recommendations.
“If doctors and solicitors can have a code of conduct, why not journalists?”
Instead, he expressed serious misgivings about any new legislation to regulate newspapers, arguing that it could intrude on a free press.
This is a legitimate concern, but it is misplaced in this case. For if doctors and solicitors can have a code of conduct, why not journalists?
Speaking as a part-time journalist, and a member of the National Union of Journalists, I don’t see any reason why my colleagues should fear being held to ethical standards. We all, I hope, want ethical journalism.
Light-touch rules to ensure responsible, fair reporting will not inhibit freedom of the press. Providing there is a strong and clear public interest defence clause, they won’t constrain investigative journalism and the press exposure of wrongdoing by people in high places.
However, what constitutes redress for press victims has not been sufficiently spelled out by Leveson.
I’d like to see a statutory right of reply for people who’ve been subjected to false media allegations. If the proposed arbitration body finds against them, newspapers should be required by law to publish an apology and correction of factual errors, on the same page with the same prominence, within seven days.
“There is no contradiction between a fair press and a free press.”
I know a thing or two about this issue, having been a victim of media intrusion and fabrications when I stood as a Labour candidate in the Bermondsey byelection in 1983.
Some journalists doorstepped me day and night, rifled through my rubbish bins and spied on me in my own flat using telephoto lenses. They published articles that were blatant fiction and doctored photos to make it look like I was wearing make-up. These mostly tabloid shenanigans may have contributed to my dramatic loss of what was previously a safe Labour seat.
From this experience, I have concluded that for a democracy to function properly, the press must be factual and fair, as well as free.
Without this guarantee of fairness and factuality, informed democratic debate is impossible. In addition, the public should be able to secure redress against false reporting and have protection against invasions of privacy, where there is no public interest justification, such as exposing criminality or hypocrisy.
Such safeguards do not restrict press freedom. There is no contradiction between a fair press and a free press.
Peter Tatchell is a journalist, political campaigner and former parliamentary candidate.
